Urgent Exchange of a HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device After Percutaneous Lead Fracture

Unexpected Twists: A 61-Year-Old Male with Repeated HeartMate II Complications andSubsequent Replacement with HeartMate III

An outflow graft twist of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains a challenging clinical diagnosis and may even be misdiagnosed for other outflow obstructions. We present a case of a patient with two LVAD exchanges due to suspected outflow graft twisting in both clinical scenarios. As new LVADs continue to be designed and upgraded, clinicians must have a high index of suspicion for this rare complication.

Driveline damage and repair in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

With mounting time on continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) support, patients occasionally sustain damage to the device driveline. Outcomes associated with external and internal driveline damage and repair are currently not well documented. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of driveline damage and its repair. Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies published over the past 20 years. Fifteen studies were selected for analysis comprising of 55 patients with CF-LVAD dysfunction due to driveline damage. Demographic and perioperative variables along with outcomes including survival rates were extracted and pooled for the systematic review. Most patients (53/55) were supported on HeartMate II LVAD (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL). Internal damage was more commonly reported than external damage [69.1% (38/55) vs. 30.9% (17/55), P = .01]. Median time to driveline damage was 1.9 years [IQR 1.0, 2.5]. Most patients presented with a CF-LVAD alarm [94.5% (52/55)] and patients with internal driveline damage had a significantly higher rate of alarm activation compared to that observed for those with external damage [38/38 (100%) vs. 14/17 (82.4%), P = .04]. Patients with internal driveline dysfunction were more likely to experience component wear compared to those with external driveline dysfunction [10/38 (26.3%) vs. 0/17 (0%), P = .05]; 14.5% of patients (8/55) underwent external repair of the driveline, 5.5% (3/55) were treated with rescue tape, and 5.5% (3/55) were placed on an ungrounded cable, indicating a short-to-shield event had occurred. A total of 49.1% of patients (27/55) underwent CF-LVAD exchange, 5.5% (3/55) were weaned off the CF-LVAD to explant, and 5.5% (3/55) underwent emergent heart transplantation. The median length of hospital stay was 12 days [IQR 7, 12] and 30-day mortality rate was 14.5% (8/55). Driveline damage was more commonly reported at an internal location and despite being a well-recognized complication, mortality still appears high.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Management in the Emergency Department

The prevalence of patients living with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is rapidly increasing due to improvements in pump technology, limiting the adverse event profile, and to expanding device indications. To date, over 22,000 patients have been implanted with LVADs either as destination therapy or as a bridge to transplant. It is critical for emergency physicians to be knowledgeable of current ventricular assist devices (VAD), and to be able to troubleshoot associated complications and optimally treat patients with emergent pathology. Special consideration must be taken when managing patients with VADs including device inspection, alarm interpretation, and blood pressure measurement. The emergency physician should be prepared to evaluate these patients for cerebral vascular accidents, gastrointestinal bleeds, pump failure or thrombosis, right ventricular failure, and VAD driveline infections. Early communication with the VAD team and appropriate consultants is essential for emergent care for patients with VADs.

Current State and Future Perspectives of Energy Sources for Totally Implantable Cardiac Devices

There is a large population of patients with end-stage congestive heart failure who cannot be treated by means of conventional cardiac surgery, cardiac transplantation, or chronic catecholamine infusions. Implantable cardiac devices, many designated as destination therapy, have revolutionized patient care and outcomes, although infection and complications related to external power sources or routine battery exchange remain a substantial risk. Complications from repeat battery replacement, power failure, and infections ultimately endanger the original objectives of implantable biomedical device therapy - eliminating the intended patient autonomy, affecting patient quality of life and survival. We sought to review the limitations of current cardiac biomedical device energy sources and discuss the current state and trends of future potential energy sources in pursuit of a lifelong fully implantable biomedical device.

Pump replacement for left ventricular assist device failure can be done safely and is associated with low mortality

BACKGROUND

Although continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are durable and reliable, device replacement will be inevitable in some patients. We evaluated the incidence and outcomes of pump replacement procedures with the HeartMate II (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, CA) LVAD.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 1,128 patients implanted from March 2005 to January 2010 with the HeartMate II during the clinical trials for bridge to transplant and destination therapy. The operative mortality associated with the replacement procedure was determined.

RESULTS

The mean duration of HeartMate II support was 568 ± 535 days (cumulative duration: 1,755 patient-years, longest: 6.5 years). A total of 72 (6.4%) patients underwent 79 LVAD replacements (0.045 events/patient-year) of which 2 were in the initial operation and 77 in separate procedures. Reasons for replacement were percutaneous lead damage (36 events, 3.0%), device thrombosis (25 events, 2.1%), infection (7 events, 0.6%), and miscellaneous other (11 events, 0.9%). The median time to pump replacement was 428 days (range 0 to 1,474). Of the 77 replacement procedures, there were 5 (6.5%) operative deaths within 30 days. The causes of death were device thrombosis, right heart failure, multisystem organ failure, and bleeding. One year after exchange (median 2.1 years after initial implant), 30% had died, 5% were transplanted, and 65% were ongoing and alive.

CONCLUSIONS

HeartMate II device failure requiring pump replacement is infrequent, but when required can be done safely. These data continue to provide encouraging evidence supporting HeartMate II use for long-term circulatory support.

Device exchange after primary left ventricular assist device implantation: indications and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Patients are being supported for longer periods with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) owing to longer transplantation wait times and approval of LVADs for destination therapy. This comes with an increased potential need for device exchange when complications arise. There are few data examining this patient population.

METHODS

Between August 1998 and January 2012, 45 patients (34 men) underwent 57 device exchanges after primary pulsatile or continuous-flow LVAD implantation. The median age at the initial LVAD implantation was 58 years (range, 28-78 years) and the median time to first device exchange was 15 months (range, immediate-56 months). Indications for primary LVAD included bridge to transplantation in all but 10 patients, and devices included the HeartMate I (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA) in 16 patients, the HeartMate II (Thoratec) in 21 patients, the HeartWare HVAD (HeartWare, Framingham, MA) in 2 patients, the DuraHeart I (Terumo Heart, Ann Arbor, MI) in 1 patient, and other devices in 5 patients. Indications for reoperation included device/component failure (n=24), major driveline infection (n=15), pump thrombus (n=15), and other indications (n=2).

RESULTS

Pumps implanted in 57 reoperations included the HeartMate I in 15 patients, the HeartMate II in 35 patients, the HeartWare HVAD in 2 patients, the DuraHeart I in 2 patients, and other devices in 3 patients. Early mortality occurred in 2/57 (3.5%) patients. Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-113 months); median length of LVAD therapy after the first device exchange was 13 months (range, 1-59 months). Actuarial 1-year survival and freedom from repeated device exchange after the first exchange was 89% and 79%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Device exchange may be required after LVAD implantation. This can be performed with low early mortality and no adverse effect on late survival. Multiple reoperations may be required in some patients.